bear-notes-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions the prerequisite setting ('Requires content replacement to be enabled in settings') and provides usage constraints (e.g., not including markdown sub-headers for section scope). Annotations already cover destructive (true), read-only (false), idempotent (true), and open-world (true) hints, so the description appropriately supplements without contradicting them, though it doesn't detail rate limits or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concise prerequisites and usage guidelines. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second adds a setting requirement, and the third provides sibling tool references. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, destructive operation) and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and sibling differentiation. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values or error cases, which could be helpful for a destructive tool. This minor gap prevents a perfect score, but it's still strong overall.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (id, scope, text, header). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—it implies parameter usage by mentioning 'note ID' and 'section' but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Replace content in an existing Bear note') and resource ('Bear note'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear-add-text (for adding text without replacement) and bear-search-notes (for finding note IDs). It explicitly mentions the scope options ('either the full body or a specific section'), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it directs users to 'Use bear-search-notes first to get the note ID' and states 'To add text without replacing existing content use bear-add-text instead.' It also includes prerequisites ('Requires content replacement to be enabled in settings'), covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenarios with named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.